freeassociate2

williamh said:

clemynx said:

22july2013 said:

ranson said:

You should never just turn someone's MFA off without their explicit approval.

Usually I'm a "let the market decide" person rather than "regulate with new laws" person, but perhaps it should be illegal to go from 1FA to ZeroFA, so maybe it should also be illegal to go from 2FA to 1FA.

Sorry, just coming here to say that I find crazy that after all the horrible things the market has freely decided in the past century and the countless proof that regulation is what made everything better for consumers, people still say “let the market decide”. It can only be  brainwashing at this point. I don’t plan on starting a debate and won’t answer on this subject, but I really had to say it, it’s so nonsensical. 

Go ahead and don't answer.  There's a place for regulation but more regulation does not equal more better.  After all the horrible things that fascists like yourself have imposed on unfree people in the past century, only a brainwashed person could still think it's a good idea.   Clearly it wasn't regulation that resulted in all the innovations that have benefited everyone in the last century.

Maybe do some historical research instead of spouting weird nonesense? A lot of the innovations you’re touting came from cooperative research between PUBLIC and private entities, which are regulated as fuck. Before that? Rampant theft from patent holders, mostly from Britain. The U.S., before China, was the place to go if you wanted to steal IP and not get prosecuted. So while there may have been innovation, it was largely based on theft. That and hucksterism — Bell wasn’t alone in being a thief and a bully. (There’s a dissertation’s worth of evidence that innovative ideas and inventions were stolen wholesale from immigrants, America’s non-white population, women, and “the little guy”.) Regulations that followed made it harder for that kind of theft.

And then there’s the standards groups that allowed for a great deal of innovation — even if it’s self-regulation, it’s still regulations.

Also, “fascist”, really? Take a Xanax there buddy. After that look up the definition of fascist and maybe do a little reading from bonafide experts about what constitutes fascism. Conservative mouthpieces don’t qualify.

Here’s a theory... mac gaming is smaller than WinPC gaming for one simple reason — all the cheater hacks are designed for WinPC. 

maasj said:

JFC_PA said:

“ Notably, the Committee didn't request information from Twitter CEO Elon Musk”

How to say, not a serious hearing on the topic while not saying, “we’re just posing”. 

They don’t need to subpoena him. He’s already released evidence of Twitter under previous ownership colluding with government officials to suppress certain views. Look up The Twitter Files from the past few months. And Twitter under his watch clearly isn’t going to collude with other Big Tech companies anymore. So why should Twitter be part of this investigation?

Because the information from Twit is cherrypicked by cherrypicked trolls, that’s why. The Twitter Farts prove nothing other than anything can be skewed when the complete context isn’t available. It's no different than individuals crying about election fraud (proven wrong). Or the individuals trying to compare Biden to the guy that stuffed toilets with government documents. Etc. It's all false equivalence and lies. I wager an independent investigation would find a fat lot of nothing.

A subpeona would also potentially reveal Musk’s own suppression and witch-hunting activities (which, given his documented behavior, is absolutely happening).

Also, for the last time... who gives two shits if they were supressing anything? These businesses are not public squares, nor public property, and are entitled to their own free speech rights given their structure as a legal “person”. Given that places like Twitter didn't sue, leak info, or publicly push back, one could surmise they didn't feel undue pressure from the government. (Which definitely has the power to censor a host of types of speech btw — so a government sponsored forum won’t help much).

PS - Musk would love to collude or get his snowflake tantrum bully way, it’s the other companies that won’t let him. Not the other way around. 

rob53 said:

gatorguy said:

I mentioned a few weeks ago to those cheering the DoJ investigating Google that they should understand that Apple's time was also coming. The government's intent is to counter the influence and control exerted by Big Tech, and not any specific company. There's a sense among some regulators and government officials that Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Google, perhaps Microsoft as well, have become so rich and powerful as to operate with impunity and perhaps at times above the law. 

Then why aren't Walmart and Big Oil actually being regulated? Could easily add big farming corporations, house builders and just about everything else. Forgot to mention corrupt military contractors as well.

Because collusion is better managed in those markets and competitors don’t tattle on each other. 

Re: the idea that Walmart and Big Oil are lesser devils = facepalm (over and over). Anyone who’s passingly familiar with the history of those companies or industries could tell you otherwise.

This shit is because big tech got caught in the political cross-hairs, pure and simple. Not saying that regulation isn’t overdue — it is. But for all the wrong reasons, using all the wrong methods — unless your intent is to target political rivals.

Match Group, which essentially scams its customers, and raises subscription prices after acquiring competitors (and should be looked into for its acquisitions alone) has no moral standing here.

Why is it that the only companies that complain are the ones with long reputations for engaging in questionable business practices themselves?